DarkOx, it's hard to believe your comment is based on any familiarity at all with Netflix's streaming content. I have been a subscriber to Netflix since the beginning. When they first instituted streaming, I eagerly adopted it. It was promoted as "Watch Instantly" which will always be streaming's biggest draw - no waiting for a DVD if you just suddenly have to watch some random film you just read about. Or you need to watch part of it to do some research, etc. And indeed, Netflix USED TO offer a large variety of streaming content. Contrary to your assertion, though, Netflix streaming has never been focused on the top-hit of the year, "Hollywood-A-list" movies. It was always the backlists and Criterion stuff that streaming was great for.
But now, that's mostly gone, because Netflix let most of its streaming licensing agreements expire about a year ago. Google the news and see for yourself. It was widely criticized in the financial press and was cause for criticism that Netflix's stock and prospects were wildly overvalued. Almost nothing is available on Netflix streaming now. It has nothing to do with "my recommendations algorithm" not getting fed. If I put a film title into Netflix's search engine, and it comes up as "DVD only," my recommendations didn't do that. Netflix did. The Criterions - gone. All of the indy houses - gone. Anime - virtually all gone.
The real dick move, and idiot move, was for Netflix NOT to raise its prices sooner. Having choked off by 50% or more the variety of content that subscribers could stream, to in rapid succession (1) make a price rise that was double for many people, and (2) indicate they'd lose their DVDs in the near future if they didn't subscribe to a separate service, made people who already felt very screwed over by the dramatic drop in streaming content even more screwed. If Netflix's CEOs had thought the slightest bit ahead, they would have instituted a series of modest price rises for DVD levels in the years leading up to the rollover date for their licensing agreements with Sony, etc. Then, they could have afforded to keep operating a streaming service that reasonably corresponded in breadth with their DVD service. Moreover, during that time period, Hulu, etc. had not emerged as serious alternatives. But once they'd lost most of the content that made streaming valuable, it felt like a complete buttfuck to get slapped with more-money-for-less-service. No, I didn't quit them entirely, but I dropped down to the lowest level and picked up Hulu Plus. Which still doesn't have a lot of the older, art-house and foreign stuff I want, so I'm stuck waiting for DVDs on those.
You completely missed the point, so badly that I wonder if you did it on purpose just to troll. Of course broadband wireless is not a "natural monopoly." (I think that's the concept you were aiming at.) Der - neither are "operating systems" but monopolies can still be created and maintained through anti-competitive conduct. The state laws that prevent municipalities from competing with Verizon, et al, are intended to CREATE and PROTECT monopolies, where none would naturally exist. Take the typical case of Podunkville, if Verizon is the only provider operating in or near the area, and there are too few Podunk-ites or they are too spread out for Verizon or (note well) ANYONE ELSE to care about setting up broadband wireless to sell to them. When the municipality steps in to create the service on its own, it is competing with Verizon, not setting up a monopoly. You could still get Verizon broadband if Verizon ever cared to offer it in Podunkville, and you could still get some private operator's wireless feed if any private operator thought the Podunk-ites would be profitable enough to set up a tower for them. But if neither of those things happen through free competition, the municipality is effectively competing with the big telco and the private wifi providers, and winning the competition in Podunkville because its competitors decline to serve Podunkville.
OTOH, when the state steps in with a law preventing municipalities from operating broadband, that effectively CREATES a monopoly that did not previously exist and hands it to the big telco. The private wi-fi co can't afford to come in without the municipal assistance, and so Podunk is broadbandless by force of law. And now, the big telco can hold Podunkville hostage, since they have no other broadband option -- this is exactly why they support these laws of course -- and force the municipality, taxpayers, etc. to fork over whatever obscene non-competitive ransom they demand to bring broadband to their area. Every nasty aspect of monopoly abuse is lurking here, and that's what these state laws pandering to Verizon, et al are designed to produce - the footbal-stadiumization of wireless broadband, where economically starved areas will mortgage their children so that an already-rich corporation can make huge profits, in return for promising them a few jobs.
I believe there may be an inherent problem -- in terms of federal antitrust law -- when a state passes a law to protect a private monopoly. Yes, I know that municipalities can run their own public services, such as water, gas, electricity or [duh] broadband, even as monopolies, without violating the rules against "restraint on trade." But this is different. This is the state stepping in to shield privately-owned local monopolies from municipal competition, which in most cases is their only viable competition. I'm inclined to suspect there's an interesting antitrust case to be made here. Can't wait. Willing to help if anyone's seriously interested in pursuing it.
Usual disclaimers when I talk about law: Yes, I'm a lawyer. No, this post is not intended to give legal advice. Reading this does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and me. Thanks for listening.
Not to drive this into the ground but . . . "air conditioning?" Yes, I have air conditioning. No, it's not running when I am doing audio recording. Yes, it would probably keep the computer cool. But it would make MORE noise than the computer. Also, if I were a multimillion dollar studio with a separate control room, I would not be cringing to pay $4000 for an Xserve, iServe, whatever, to see if it is quieter than my homebrew gear.
PS - my rack gear actually is "silent" by the definition I would use, which is "can I hear them in a recording or see their obvious fingerprint in a silence section." Also by the definition used by others "I have to look at the front panel to see if they're on." Proteus 2000, MOTU 828, MOTU Midi Express, Yamaha P20000 keyboard, if you're curious.
The advice of both replies is greatly appreciated. I have not seen either yate loon or globe on any of my usual vendor sites, so I will search for them. Re: temps creeping up on the Reserator, could that possibly be related to using different waterblocks and tubing than it's spec'd for? Just wondering - the system water volume could go up or down which could affect cooling.
extensively over the past few years. I'm taking the trouble to rant a bit about what others have said, as well as post a summary of my own research and experimentation, because every time I read a thread anywhere about this subject, I see the same ol' same ol', most of it misinformed or plain wrong. (For background, my household has a G4 silver MAC, a parts-built PC running Windows, a parts-built PC running Linux, and a G4 Titanium powerbook.)
RANTS:
1. "Silent PC" Is Not a Fetish.
There are practical reasons why some of us demand silence from a computer. The one that drives me is the fact that I use my computer(s) to record audio. Short of building a separate room to house the computer (which causes insane problems with ventilation, video/kb/mouse cables, etc.), you simply have to get it silent for a professional-quality recording. Another reason is home theater, which I believe was mentioned in the article. I really don't understand why people who couldn't care less how much noise their computer emits (like people who run server rooms) continually post in these threads. We silent freaks are aware there are lots of people who have no reason to care about dBs. That's why it's so hard to find parts to build a truly silent PC. I don't give a flip about overclocking - do I go around posting "you overclockers are kooky" in every thread on overclocking on Ars or Tom's or Anand's? Jeez.
2. Fans Equal Noise. Period. There is no way around this. If you have fans anywhere in your computer, your computer will not be silent. It may be marginally quieter with some fans than others, but fans move air around and turn on a shaft, and both of those things are impossible to silence. Quieten, yes. Silence, no. And I have tried a number of supposedly "quiet PC" fans, including CPU fans. Rheostats are commonly put forward as a solution to the noise problem. They're not, at least for me, because turning fans down with a rheostat is only feasible when the computer is not working hard. But even single-channel audio recording is processor-intensive, and when you add effects processing or additional channels, booyah! Turn down the fans to the point where they are quiet enough for audio recording and you will lock up due to heat, and I am speaking from experience here. Moreover, turned-down fans are still not silent, and quiet enough is still not professional-quality. The same would be true for a home theater installation - encoding/decoding makes heat. The same is true for mobo-automated fan turndown. It turns straight up right when the computer needs to be quiet, for the same reason. (One post mentioned that the Mac iServe has three virtually-silent fans. If this is true, I would love to get ahold of such fans without paying $4K for an iServe. But every other product I've heard described as "virtually silent" -- e.g., power supplies -- always made noise. Fan noise. Because fans equal noise. So I'm skeptical. The Mac Mini was mentioned also, but is insufficient in processing power/ram to run my studio.) Also, contrary to the article, more fans at a slower speed are not quieter. Theoretically, perhaps, but not to the real human ear.
3. "Quiet Cases" Are Useless. This applies both to cases made of heavy material specifically designed to be quiet, and insulation foam that you paste inside the case. Tried em, dumped em. I should have recognized in advance that heavier and/or insulated cases substantially decrease heat dissipation through the case, which means -- that's right -- more and faster FANS, and fans equal noise. Anything you gain by putting your computer guts in an insulated fortress, you will lose by the whining RPMs tacked onto your CPU and vidcard fans, and incidentally, your kewl mobo-controlled or power-supply controlled fans will crank up to high RPMs as well. It's worse than a wash - it's actually noisier. Learned it the hard way.
4. Most Water-cooling Is Probably Useless. I say "probably" because I h
OK - I keep waiting for someone to make this point, but whatever:
Let's say all I know of this story is:
- some guy got up to a podium and said "I believe that Proposition X is true."
- as his sole evidence to support Proposition X, he cites a single anecdotal behavior of his 5-year-old progeny.
My conclusion would be exactly the same as it is knowing the full story: I don't care WHAT "Proposition X" is, whether it's PC, non-PC, anti-PC, or PQRSTUV. The speaker is absolutely ignorant as to how to apply scientific method to test a proposition - one of the central tenets being that you NEVER rely on a single anecdotal observation (these more often lead to grave errors than right conclusions), and further that you never rely on evidence where the subject (the daughter) could be influenced by the intended premise, or the observer could be similarly influenced.
Such a person has no business speaking to any educated audience about science, and certainly has no business heading up a university purporting to educate scientists. I don't care whether his proposition/conclusion was "girls are bad at science" or "girls are good at science." Everything about his reasoning is BAD SCIENCE.
It should boil your beans. It is truly sad for both artists and listeners that much music is heard ONLY in 128kbps or lower bitrates. I listen at that bitrate fairly routinely, but only at my computer, on headphones or the gaming rig, and only to material that doesn't "whoosh" or "ring" or "hollow out" at that bitrate (e.g., the various streaming "SomaFM" stations which play chillout, industrial and trance stuff - fairly devoid of unprocessed highs.)
Going off-topic a bit here, but other Dotters have raised similar concerns regarding the quality of CD mastering, pointing out that (in recent years) most pop CD audio has all of the headroom mastered off of it so it will sound uniformly loud, hence chopping off about 1/4 of the actual high end of the sound that was recorded, and leaving a clipped, distorted waveform where real audio used to be. Some were linked to very convincing and useful demonstrations of exactly why modern CDs (I'm talking full uncompressed audio CDs, even) sound like crap compared to older recordings. Most of the ranters who responded to these posts in the past would pop out a one-liner: "It's SUPPOSED to sound distorted, you old farts! It's heavy metal (or rock, or whatever)." Kind of forgetting that it's the old farts who INVENTED the fuzz stomp box and all of the other distortion methods used in rock guitar, but the Stones, Hendrix and Zeppelin were not stupid enough to run their whole MIX through a crude stomp box. Which is pretty much what happens to a modern CD even before it ever gets compressed to MP3.
So rant aside, I guess what I'm saying is, given that the "original" material cranked out by the Music Mafia these days is so audio-impaired, perhaps it ain't the kids' fault they can't tell the difference. Which is to say, I'm agreeing with you, and it's sad.
It's interesting how hot people can get over this subject. People who can hear artifacts in lower-bitrate mp3s accuse the non-hearers of being audio philistines. People who can't hear those artifacts (or aren't bothered by them) accuse the hearers of being snobs. Others have pointed out that perception of artifacts may vary based on listening equipment (iPod headphones vs. high-range speakers vs. computer-gaming rig). The following additional reasons for differing perceptions, IMO, also should not be overlooked:
Nature of material. The CD on my computer desk is Pete Tong's "Twisted Beats" - a DJ mix in which bass predominates and vocals are highly processed already. Although I haven't tried, I'm sure I could listen to that material for hours at a highly-compressed ratio without hearing any problems. The CDs stacked by the stereo in my living room include, e.g., Bach violin concertos recorded by Itzhak Perlman. Because of the numerous high transients in such material, I'm sure they'd stink in mp3 of anything less than the highest bitrate, and maybe even that. I've not tried this particular CD, but my experience encoding classical music in mp3 at anything lower than the highest bitrate has been dismal, and resulted in my throwing the files away. (In addition to violin, soprano vocals and all pieces recorded in a acoustically-rich environment such as a large church particularly stink as mp3. I've not tried them as OGG but I assume the same would hold. I also suspect the same is true for heavy-metal or other rock music that uses guitar distortion algorithms rich with high harmonics.) So perhaps when arguing about whether a particular bitrate or codec is transparent, a reference to the type of material would be in order.
Individual hearing variation. I had my hearing tested at a job once, where they were worried about people losing their hearing because of high ambient noise and failure (not me) to wear ear protection around machines. The tech repeated the test at the highest range about 3 times, as I recall, and said that "I'm just re-doing it because we rarely have anyone who can hear that accurately up in that high range." The highest testing range where he found me unusually acute was only 10-20 kHz. We always read that the range of human hearing is 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Rarely is it acknowledged that this is an average, and that individual hearing will vary, especially at the theoretical extremes of human hearing. I therefore have no beef with people who can't hear high transient distortion, or with people who can't hear such highs at all (and thus are mystified by my pain when I listen to certain poorly-mixed CDs which fail to de-emphasize the extreme high range). But I do get annoyed at accusations of snobbery - I can hear it, OK?
I know - I tried to order one last week. The G5 IServes are total vaporware, apparently. Maybe you can get one if you have political connections, or something. They will let you pay for it, but will not commit to a ship date. Sound familiar? Then the salesperson gives you a hard sell, totally rehearsed, about why you don't really need the G5 IServe fastest-computer-in-the-world, how about a nice G4? Fsck that.
Nice way to treat someone who only last year decided to try her first Mac. I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering how long Apple is going to hold onto us "switchers" with vapor products.
umm . . . read the article. It says that they obtained a copy of the application (presumably from VISA or the bank), and there was an "N/A" on the signature line. Unless I'm missing something, that means that there was no signature on that line, and someone marked the signature line "N/A" (not available) in hopes that the application would go through anyway.
Also, you seem to be pretty naive about credit card companies. There have been several major nationwide lawsuits against banks and credit card companies for (among other nasty things) systematically slapping customers with phony late charges to the tune of millions per year. And I know that there is at least some basis for these lawsuits, because I have received phony late charges myself, and cancelled several credit cards because of it. So far, Bank of America has been pretty respectable - that's the only one I have left.
(With the disclaimer that I only am licensed to practice law in California, and although I am in the process of starting a solo practice, I am chained to a law firm for the next month or so and thus can't initiate my own cases. and this is not legal advice, yadda yadda - see sig)
Some of the aspects of this story sound legally questionable. For example, a credit card company's acceptance of an unsigned credit card application, in general. But also, since there was no signature, your wife (although extremely careless and naive for throwing her personal information in a public trash can) never consented to the "fine print" which was the ostensible hook for the company to distribute her info to spammers, telemarketers, other vermin. True, if someone fished her info out of the trash and used it for spamming, she might not have much of a remedy - although some states have put anti-spamming laws into effect, they typically only give a remedy against the spammer, and they make themselves hard to find and identify - who do you sue? But it sounds, from your account, like you can prove the unsigned application was actually submitted to VISA, and may be able to prove that VISA sold her info to the pond scum with knowledge that she had not consented. If that were so, you might have some kind of remedy against VISA or the bank that issued the VISA. If you are in a jurisdiction like California which has a privacy right incorporated in its state constitution, your position might be even stronger.
I would recommend consulting a lawyer who is licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. If you don't know a lawyer, try contacting law schools in your area or your State Bar Association to ask if there are any referral services they would recommend to look at a case of potential privacy violation. This is better than picking up the phone book at random.
When Slashdot initially ran the Earthstation V article, I posted a warning that this looked an awful lot like an RIAA/MPAA "honeypot" to me. Everybody ignored me, because they were too busy giving high-fives to Earthstation for bravely taking on the RIAA, etc. Now we learn that Earthstation has exactly the "feature" the Content Mafia would put in a honeypot - the ability to delete content off of your machine. I guess all of us (or at least some of us) are as gullible as the Content Mafia think we are.
TIME is just parroting another version of the same logically flawed analogy the Content Mafia have been pimping for years - "how can we compete with FREE? no one can compete with FREE?" That is utter hooey. The major labels have not ever tried to "compete with FREE." They do not even offer singles, the product that people want -- they insist on selling whole CDs, or nothing at all. And despite the late-breaking half-ass efforts to pretend to sell online music, none of the industry-sponsored alternatives offer anything close to a full selection of the P2P-available catalog, and with the exception of Itunes most of it is still crippled, booby-trapped, or expiration-dated. If the customer wishes (and we do) to permanently own any single track in electronic form, and obtain it on demand by running a simple online query, there simply are ZERO alternatives to P2P. That product is not for sale. It cannot be purchased.
Hence, the correct analogy is "if Coke stopped selling single cans of ice-cold Coke to thirsty people, and instead insisted that you buy a whole case and then take the cans home and chill them (rip them) for an hour before drinking, but there was a giant refrigerator on every corner that offered free single cans of Coke to everyone, on demand, how many people would pay for Coke?" It is not a choice between stealing and buying. It is a choice between P2P and not getting the product you want, period.
The same fallacy exists with the "shoplifting" analogy the Content Mafia have pimped to the mass media. Shoplifting is considered morally unacceptable, not just because you can be criminally punished for it, but because it is very simple and easy to take the product you want off the shelf, walk to the checkout stand, take out your wallet, and pay for it. Target doesn't stick 10 other unwanted products in your cart every time you try to buy something. Safeway doesn't sell you food that is booby-trapped so that you can't put it in your backpack and eat it while you're walking down the street. Best Buy doesn't come and take the TV back if you decide you'd like to shop at another store from now on. When the industry truly has a product for-sale that offers a complete selection of fully capable, permanently ownable online music, then they can complain about "competing with FREE." Until then, let them buy their Coke lukewarm and a case at a time, and see how they like it.
I think you may be confused. This is a private action brought by the Webcaster's Alliance, not a government action like the Microsoft antitrust suit. Hence, the Bush administration cannot let them go for a "wink and a smile." Only the Webcaster's Alliance can "let them go." An increase in private antitrust actions of this nature is, in my view, an inevitable result of the current administration's unwillingness to enforce the law.
I am a lawyer with some antitrust experience, though it's not my speciality, and I agree with the Coward. This complaint is not a slap-dash garage job. It has a basis in existing law and a decent chance of going forward as a suit. In fact, I have wondered for several years (and sometimes out loud on Slashdot) why creative lawyers have not put antitrust theories to better use in the RIAA context. (Unfortunately, for at least the next couple of years, I'm chained to a firm where I cannot do such work.)
I also want to address the most prevalent piece of misinformation throughout this discussion - whiny trolls going "why shouldn't webcasters pay royalties? other radio broadcasters have to pay them. no fair." NO, THEY DON'T. AIRWAVE BROADCASTERS DO NOT PAY THE RIAA A CENT. In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite: RIAA's members shower radio stations with millions of dollars in backroom payoffs to get them to play mass-produced crap that is cost-free for them to put out, because it's made by kids dumb enough to sign contracts that give the studio every cent they make. And now that virtually all of the broadcast radio stations are owned by one or two companies, they've got fewer payoff checks to write.
Obviously, indie webcasters are the biggest threat imaginable to this monopolist's paradise that makes Bill Gates look like a candy-ass. Unlike airwave bandwidth, which is "auctioned" for huge sums at closed proceedings, and protected by the Feds from unauthorized indie broadcasting, anyone with a decent bandwidth DSL and a server can stream an internet broadcast. And the RIAA has absolutely no leverage to keep these broadcasters from introducing their listeners to the artists they actually think are good, rather than the kiddie-schlock that is making RIAA members the most money.
So is this lawsuit merely paranoid in insisting that the RIAA is trying to shut down internet radio? If you believe that, I've got a booby-trapped CD that won't play in your computer to sell you.
Our home/SOHO network has almost exactly what you have: homebrew server on Gentoo, a homebrew Windows 2000 box, and a Mac G4 on OSX 10.2. When we dumped my girlfriend's old PowerMac and got the G4 running on 0S 10.2, it made a believer out of me. There are definitely advantages to each platform at the present time, although the main advantage for Win2K ("Mac version of Game X or Software Y won't be available for years, if ever") seems to be diminishing. Apple is also playing that game back, with a vengance - they are buying up music and audio software companies left and right, and discontinuing their PC versions. (Emagic, maker of Logic Audio, being the most famous.)
I kid you not, when I buy my next computer, it will be one of those shiny titanium notebooks. The OS is getting so robust that "you can't do that on an Apple" is getting obsolete. Try drilling down into the BSD core, getting fink and compiling open source stuff if you don't believe me. My girlfriend is all jumping around going "I told you so, I told you so" -- but I'm not the one who changed. Apple has been doing it right for several years, in my view - they're just doing it faster now. Kewl!
Time may come that the only reason I still need a non-Mac computer is to play Neverwinter Nights.:-P
Somebody tell me what I'm missing:
A - the P2P sharers are encrypting copyrighted materials.
B - the RIAA's goons are breaking the encryption
why does A + B not equal C - mass, widespread and publicly admitted criminal violation of the DMCA by the RIAA? Of course, under any rational interpretion of the DMCA, one would have to be breaking the encryption for the purpose of violating the copyright in order to be guilty of a crime, but the RIAA itself has argued in court that there is no intent requirement.
Since they have publicly admitted their ongoing intent to violate DMCA in national publications, we should contact our State Attorneys General and inform them that they should bring criminal charges under the DMCA.
I'll be dropping the California Attorney General a little line, myself.
also, Gentoo's security howto is very easy to understand, if you need to do more than the default. I know this is not a thread for Gentoo (I already yanked my own karma bonus so no need to mod me offtopic), but it is the best thing I've found for the semi-Linux-literate who just want to run an all purpose SOHO server with web-serving capability and not wrench around on it constantly. Gentoo's ports system makes it way easy to keep the patches for services running on outside-accessible ports up 100% to date, and that IMNSHO is the best way to ensure security (over and above securing non-needed ports which is fundamental.)
LOL! But not just one post - I've been around for several years on/. although I've been too busy with depositions to post much lately. When my golden handcuffs are officially removed, I plan to take whatever cases I fancy, and also pursue my musical composing interests and become a goat farmer in West Virginia. I'm told that goats have "public relations" all the time (isn't there a goatse.cx place?) I'll be sure to consult with them about it.:-)
this is not your typical "I am not a lawyer, but . .." comment. On the contrary, it's an "I AM a lawyer" comment. There are very interesting and provocative legal issues raised here, pertaining to the GPL, misuse of copyright, trade libel, and freedom of speech, and I don't think SCO has the best end of the argument on any of them.
However, don't, don't, don't send me your names if you want to sue SCO, please. The email address I have posted at Slashdot is/dev/null, and I am presently (but hopefully not for too much longer) working for a giant law firm where I can't just decide to take a case if I want to. But if I were not under that limitation, I would be very interested in talking with anyone who became the target of a cease-and-desist letter from SCO. I'm sure there are others with similar interests who are not under the same professional constraints, and I suggest that anyone who gets a SCO Linux nastygram consider contacting www.chillingeffects.org and posting the letter there, whereupon students and professors at various law schools may offer free commentary and legal advice. It's my understanding that some victims of improper copyright abuse have obtained lawyers as a result of posting on chillingeffects (although I don't think the site actually offers representation).
I want to correct (or I guess just put a different gloss on) one statement that has been made in the discussion. The GPL's comments regarding standing to sue are probably the law in most jurisdictions. However, in California where I am licensed, there is a statute known as Section 17200 that gives its citizens broad standing to sue for unfair business practices on behalf of the public interest. Although the remedies would be limited to disgorgement of profits (paying back anyone who paid for a SCO Linux license) and injunctive relief (an order that SCO stop asking people to pay for licenses, claiming they own Linux, distributing binary-only, etc.), the interest of the open source community in continuing its free development and use of Linux seems in my view to be exactly the type of public interest this (oft-misused) statute was designed to protect. Moreover, attorney fees can be awarded under 17200, so I feel certain that if the news is well-disseminated, some lawyer not currently wearing the golden handcuffs (as I am) will take up the banner.
Likely that Apple thinks it will increase that dinky market share by becoming the first user-friendly download service actually supported by the content mafia. OK, so Apple won't wipe out the PC/Windows world on that basis. But let's say they go from 3% to 6% - a drop in the Windows bucket, but from Apple's perspective they've doubled their market share and that's good for shareholders.
The question is, will the content mafia actually go for it? Many have already pointed out that the available info is suspiciously vague and inconsistent. (e.g., some stories are reporting "unlimited downloads for $10 mo. subscription, plus 99c per song if you want a burnable copy," other stories are just straight 99c per song, etc.) I doubt that in the end, Apple will be able to bring the content mafia around to the key user-friendliness points that are necessary to wean music lovers from P2P - most important among them, the ability to burn CDs.
So I'll add mine to the growing chorus of predictions: Yes, if Apple actually does this, it will be quite popular. But it will never actually happen, because the content mafia will be unable to shake their ingrained stomp-on-the-customer mindset. At the last minute, they'll all gang together and insist on some kind of booby-trapped format that will make the downloaded music useless, and Apple will go back to chanting "rip, mix, burn" to the P2P masses. Summary - this will be yet another "greatest opportunity an obsolete, copyright-abusing, customer-despising industry ever missed."
(and just for context, I own over 2,700 CDs, have owned and sold many more over the years, paid for them all, and at present have ripped about 3,000 high-quality MP3s onto my home server for use through portables and stereo. I don't share those files P2P, and have no inherent inclination to do so. But my new policy is - every time I buy a CD that turns out to be booby-trapped (turns out I have about 5 of them), I'll be cracking the encryption where possible and ripping the whole thing into a P2P share directory, plus 5 other CDs from that same label. When the content mafia started selling booby-trapped CDs that won't work on computers, and lobbying Washington to force more booby-traps into my computer, they made an enemy of one of their best customers. I hope they go down in flames, and artists start selling directly to the public. Maybe Apple can help facilitate that, after it realizes the content mafia is just dangling a fake carrot.)
I'll do way more than that -- I'll start uploading pirated music, wholesale, willy-nilly. If the whole internet universe is paying an RIAA tax, on the presumption that everyone is pirating their music, it won't be "stealing" or "pirating" any more - it will be bought-and-paid-for file sharing that we have a legal right to do. The RIAA can't simultaneously profit from a fee based on the presumption that everyone file-shares music, and then turn around and prosecute me for actually doing it.
So let me see, we personally have about 3,000 legally purchased CDs, and about 2,500 songs from those CDs are already on our server for personal use on our home network. Go ahead, RIAA - make my day. The bloody freaking second you slap me with a fee for presuming I do something I don't do, that's the second I start doing it. With a few clicks of a mouse, our entire personal collection could become a massive P2P free shopping center. And just wait until we get our whole collection on the server!
Now keep in mind, I have no pre-existing desire or inclination to do this. But if I get slapped with some kind of RIAA presumed-piracy fee by my ISP, I'm damn sure going to start doing it, because I don't want to get ripped off paying the fee for nothing. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. Good going, RIAA! Another completely counterintuitive and counterproductive knee-jerk greed reaction, which as usual displays total incomprehension of good business sense or respect for your best customers.
I suspected that no "real" college students were broadcasting. I was not, however, aware of some of the info in the New Times article, and I appreciate your link to it. Regarding the fundamental question in the article -- is KCRW just another payola-influenced commercial station in disguise -- I think that question can be answered simply by listening to the content. If payola ruled at KCRW, it would be playing the same crap all of the other stations play, and therefore would not be getting this glowing writeup from me.
Slashdot Mirror
DarkOx, it's hard to believe your comment is based on any familiarity at all with Netflix's streaming content. I have been a subscriber to Netflix since the beginning. When they first instituted streaming, I eagerly adopted it. It was promoted as "Watch Instantly" which will always be streaming's biggest draw - no waiting for a DVD if you just suddenly have to watch some random film you just read about. Or you need to watch part of it to do some research, etc. And indeed, Netflix USED TO offer a large variety of streaming content. Contrary to your assertion, though, Netflix streaming has never been focused on the top-hit of the year, "Hollywood-A-list" movies. It was always the backlists and Criterion stuff that streaming was great for.
But now, that's mostly gone, because Netflix let most of its streaming licensing agreements expire about a year ago. Google the news and see for yourself. It was widely criticized in the financial press and was cause for criticism that Netflix's stock and prospects were wildly overvalued. Almost nothing is available on Netflix streaming now. It has nothing to do with "my recommendations algorithm" not getting fed. If I put a film title into Netflix's search engine, and it comes up as "DVD only," my recommendations didn't do that. Netflix did. The Criterions - gone. All of the indy houses - gone. Anime - virtually all gone.
The real dick move, and idiot move, was for Netflix NOT to raise its prices sooner. Having choked off by 50% or more the variety of content that subscribers could stream, to in rapid succession (1) make a price rise that was double for many people, and (2) indicate they'd lose their DVDs in the near future if they didn't subscribe to a separate service, made people who already felt very screwed over by the dramatic drop in streaming content even more screwed. If Netflix's CEOs had thought the slightest bit ahead, they would have instituted a series of modest price rises for DVD levels in the years leading up to the rollover date for their licensing agreements with Sony, etc. Then, they could have afforded to keep operating a streaming service that reasonably corresponded in breadth with their DVD service. Moreover, during that time period, Hulu, etc. had not emerged as serious alternatives. But once they'd lost most of the content that made streaming valuable, it felt like a complete buttfuck to get slapped with more-money-for-less-service. No, I didn't quit them entirely, but I dropped down to the lowest level and picked up Hulu Plus. Which still doesn't have a lot of the older, art-house and foreign stuff I want, so I'm stuck waiting for DVDs on those.
OTOH, when the state steps in with a law preventing municipalities from operating broadband, that effectively CREATES a monopoly that did not previously exist and hands it to the big telco. The private wi-fi co can't afford to come in without the municipal assistance, and so Podunk is broadbandless by force of law. And now, the big telco can hold Podunkville hostage, since they have no other broadband option -- this is exactly why they support these laws of course -- and force the municipality, taxpayers, etc. to fork over whatever obscene non-competitive ransom they demand to bring broadband to their area. Every nasty aspect of monopoly abuse is lurking here, and that's what these state laws pandering to Verizon, et al are designed to produce - the footbal-stadiumization of wireless broadband, where economically starved areas will mortgage their children so that an already-rich corporation can make huge profits, in return for promising them a few jobs.
Usual disclaimers when I talk about law: Yes, I'm a lawyer. No, this post is not intended to give legal advice. Reading this does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and me. Thanks for listening.
Not to drive this into the ground but . . . "air conditioning?" Yes, I have air conditioning. No, it's not running when I am doing audio recording. Yes, it would probably keep the computer cool. But it would make MORE noise than the computer. Also, if I were a multimillion dollar studio with a separate control room, I would not be cringing to pay $4000 for an Xserve, iServe, whatever, to see if it is quieter than my homebrew gear.
PS - my rack gear actually is "silent" by the definition I would use, which is "can I hear them in a recording or see their obvious fingerprint in a silence section." Also by the definition used by others "I have to look at the front panel to see if they're on." Proteus 2000, MOTU 828, MOTU Midi Express, Yamaha P20000 keyboard, if you're curious.
The advice of both replies is greatly appreciated. I have not seen either yate loon or globe on any of my usual vendor sites, so I will search for them. Re: temps creeping up on the Reserator, could that possibly be related to using different waterblocks and tubing than it's spec'd for? Just wondering - the system water volume could go up or down which could affect cooling.
RANTS:
1. "Silent PC" Is Not a Fetish.
There are practical reasons why some of us demand silence from a computer. The one that drives me is the fact that I use my computer(s) to record audio. Short of building a separate room to house the computer (which causes insane problems with ventilation, video/kb/mouse cables, etc.), you simply have to get it silent for a professional-quality recording. Another reason is home theater, which I believe was mentioned in the article. I really don't understand why people who couldn't care less how much noise their computer emits (like people who run server rooms) continually post in these threads. We silent freaks are aware there are lots of people who have no reason to care about dBs. That's why it's so hard to find parts to build a truly silent PC. I don't give a flip about overclocking - do I go around posting "you overclockers are kooky" in every thread on overclocking on Ars or Tom's or Anand's? Jeez.
2. Fans Equal Noise. Period.
There is no way around this. If you have fans anywhere in your computer, your computer will not be silent. It may be marginally quieter with some fans than others, but fans move air around and turn on a shaft, and both of those things are impossible to silence. Quieten, yes. Silence, no. And I have tried a number of supposedly "quiet PC" fans, including CPU fans. Rheostats are commonly put forward as a solution to the noise problem. They're not, at least for me, because turning fans down with a rheostat is only feasible when the computer is not working hard. But even single-channel audio recording is processor-intensive, and when you add effects processing or additional channels, booyah! Turn down the fans to the point where they are quiet enough for audio recording and you will lock up due to heat, and I am speaking from experience here. Moreover, turned-down fans are still not silent, and quiet enough is still not professional-quality. The same would be true for a home theater installation - encoding/decoding makes heat. The same is true for mobo-automated fan turndown. It turns straight up right when the computer needs to be quiet, for the same reason. (One post mentioned that the Mac iServe has three virtually-silent fans. If this is true, I would love to get ahold of such fans without paying $4K for an iServe. But every other product I've heard described as "virtually silent" -- e.g., power supplies -- always made noise. Fan noise. Because fans equal noise. So I'm skeptical. The Mac Mini was mentioned also, but is insufficient in processing power/ram to run my studio.) Also, contrary to the article, more fans at a slower speed are not quieter. Theoretically, perhaps, but not to the real human ear.
3. "Quiet Cases" Are Useless.
This applies both to cases made of heavy material specifically designed to be quiet, and insulation foam that you paste inside the case. Tried em, dumped em. I should have recognized in advance that heavier and/or insulated cases substantially decrease heat dissipation through the case, which means -- that's right -- more and faster FANS, and fans equal noise. Anything you gain by putting your computer guts in an insulated fortress, you will lose by the whining RPMs tacked onto your CPU and vidcard fans, and incidentally, your kewl mobo-controlled or power-supply controlled fans will crank up to high RPMs as well. It's worse than a wash - it's actually noisier. Learned it the hard way.
4. Most Water-cooling Is Probably Useless.
I say "probably" because I h
Let's say all I know of this story is:
- some guy got up to a podium and said "I believe that Proposition X is true."
- as his sole evidence to support Proposition X, he cites a single anecdotal behavior of his 5-year-old progeny.
My conclusion would be exactly the same as it is knowing the full story: I don't care WHAT "Proposition X" is, whether it's PC, non-PC, anti-PC, or PQRSTUV. The speaker is absolutely ignorant as to how to apply scientific method to test a proposition - one of the central tenets being that you NEVER rely on a single anecdotal observation (these more often lead to grave errors than right conclusions), and further that you never rely on evidence where the subject (the daughter) could be influenced by the intended premise, or the observer could be similarly influenced.
Such a person has no business speaking to any educated audience about science, and certainly has no business heading up a university purporting to educate scientists. I don't care whether his proposition/conclusion was "girls are bad at science" or "girls are good at science." Everything about his reasoning is BAD SCIENCE.
Going off-topic a bit here, but other Dotters have raised similar concerns regarding the quality of CD mastering, pointing out that (in recent years) most pop CD audio has all of the headroom mastered off of it so it will sound uniformly loud, hence chopping off about 1/4 of the actual high end of the sound that was recorded, and leaving a clipped, distorted waveform where real audio used to be. Some were linked to very convincing and useful demonstrations of exactly why modern CDs (I'm talking full uncompressed audio CDs, even) sound like crap compared to older recordings. Most of the ranters who responded to these posts in the past would pop out a one-liner: "It's SUPPOSED to sound distorted, you old farts! It's heavy metal (or rock, or whatever)." Kind of forgetting that it's the old farts who INVENTED the fuzz stomp box and all of the other distortion methods used in rock guitar, but the Stones, Hendrix and Zeppelin were not stupid enough to run their whole MIX through a crude stomp box. Which is pretty much what happens to a modern CD even before it ever gets compressed to MP3.
So rant aside, I guess what I'm saying is, given that the "original" material cranked out by the Music Mafia these days is so audio-impaired, perhaps it ain't the kids' fault they can't tell the difference. Which is to say, I'm agreeing with you, and it's sad.
Nature of material. The CD on my computer desk is Pete Tong's "Twisted Beats" - a DJ mix in which bass predominates and vocals are highly processed already. Although I haven't tried, I'm sure I could listen to that material for hours at a highly-compressed ratio without hearing any problems. The CDs stacked by the stereo in my living room include, e.g., Bach violin concertos recorded by Itzhak Perlman. Because of the numerous high transients in such material, I'm sure they'd stink in mp3 of anything less than the highest bitrate, and maybe even that. I've not tried this particular CD, but my experience encoding classical music in mp3 at anything lower than the highest bitrate has been dismal, and resulted in my throwing the files away. (In addition to violin, soprano vocals and all pieces recorded in a acoustically-rich environment such as a large church particularly stink as mp3. I've not tried them as OGG but I assume the same would hold. I also suspect the same is true for heavy-metal or other rock music that uses guitar distortion algorithms rich with high harmonics.) So perhaps when arguing about whether a particular bitrate or codec is transparent, a reference to the type of material would be in order.
Individual hearing variation. I had my hearing tested at a job once, where they were worried about people losing their hearing because of high ambient noise and failure (not me) to wear ear protection around machines. The tech repeated the test at the highest range about 3 times, as I recall, and said that "I'm just re-doing it because we rarely have anyone who can hear that accurately up in that high range." The highest testing range where he found me unusually acute was only 10-20 kHz. We always read that the range of human hearing is 20 Hz to 20 kHz. Rarely is it acknowledged that this is an average, and that individual hearing will vary, especially at the theoretical extremes of human hearing. I therefore have no beef with people who can't hear high transient distortion, or with people who can't hear such highs at all (and thus are mystified by my pain when I listen to certain poorly-mixed CDs which fail to de-emphasize the extreme high range). But I do get annoyed at accusations of snobbery - I can hear it, OK?
Nice way to treat someone who only last year decided to try her first Mac. I'm sure I'm not alone in wondering how long Apple is going to hold onto us "switchers" with vapor products.
Also, you seem to be pretty naive about credit card companies. There have been several major nationwide lawsuits against banks and credit card companies for (among other nasty things) systematically slapping customers with phony late charges to the tune of millions per year. And I know that there is at least some basis for these lawsuits, because I have received phony late charges myself, and cancelled several credit cards because of it. So far, Bank of America has been pretty respectable - that's the only one I have left.
Some of the aspects of this story sound legally questionable. For example, a credit card company's acceptance of an unsigned credit card application, in general. But also, since there was no signature, your wife (although extremely careless and naive for throwing her personal information in a public trash can) never consented to the "fine print" which was the ostensible hook for the company to distribute her info to spammers, telemarketers, other vermin. True, if someone fished her info out of the trash and used it for spamming, she might not have much of a remedy - although some states have put anti-spamming laws into effect, they typically only give a remedy against the spammer, and they make themselves hard to find and identify - who do you sue? But it sounds, from your account, like you can prove the unsigned application was actually submitted to VISA, and may be able to prove that VISA sold her info to the pond scum with knowledge that she had not consented. If that were so, you might have some kind of remedy against VISA or the bank that issued the VISA. If you are in a jurisdiction like California which has a privacy right incorporated in its state constitution, your position might be even stronger.
I would recommend consulting a lawyer who is licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. If you don't know a lawyer, try contacting law schools in your area or your State Bar Association to ask if there are any referral services they would recommend to look at a case of potential privacy violation. This is better than picking up the phone book at random.
Hence, the correct analogy is "if Coke stopped selling single cans of ice-cold Coke to thirsty people, and instead insisted that you buy a whole case and then take the cans home and chill them (rip them) for an hour before drinking, but there was a giant refrigerator on every corner that offered free single cans of Coke to everyone, on demand, how many people would pay for Coke?" It is not a choice between stealing and buying. It is a choice between P2P and not getting the product you want, period.
The same fallacy exists with the "shoplifting" analogy the Content Mafia have pimped to the mass media. Shoplifting is considered morally unacceptable, not just because you can be criminally punished for it, but because it is very simple and easy to take the product you want off the shelf, walk to the checkout stand, take out your wallet, and pay for it. Target doesn't stick 10 other unwanted products in your cart every time you try to buy something. Safeway doesn't sell you food that is booby-trapped so that you can't put it in your backpack and eat it while you're walking down the street. Best Buy doesn't come and take the TV back if you decide you'd like to shop at another store from now on. When the industry truly has a product for-sale that offers a complete selection of fully capable, permanently ownable online music, then they can complain about "competing with FREE." Until then, let them buy their Coke lukewarm and a case at a time, and see how they like it.
I also want to address the most prevalent piece of misinformation throughout this discussion - whiny trolls going "why shouldn't webcasters pay royalties? other radio broadcasters have to pay them. no fair." NO, THEY DON'T. AIRWAVE BROADCASTERS DO NOT PAY THE RIAA A CENT. In fact, the truth is precisely the opposite: RIAA's members shower radio stations with millions of dollars in backroom payoffs to get them to play mass-produced crap that is cost-free for them to put out, because it's made by kids dumb enough to sign contracts that give the studio every cent they make. And now that virtually all of the broadcast radio stations are owned by one or two companies, they've got fewer payoff checks to write.
Obviously, indie webcasters are the biggest threat imaginable to this monopolist's paradise that makes Bill Gates look like a candy-ass. Unlike airwave bandwidth, which is "auctioned" for huge sums at closed proceedings, and protected by the Feds from unauthorized indie broadcasting, anyone with a decent bandwidth DSL and a server can stream an internet broadcast. And the RIAA has absolutely no leverage to keep these broadcasters from introducing their listeners to the artists they actually think are good, rather than the kiddie-schlock that is making RIAA members the most money.
So is this lawsuit merely paranoid in insisting that the RIAA is trying to shut down internet radio? If you believe that, I've got a booby-trapped CD that won't play in your computer to sell you.
I kid you not, when I buy my next computer, it will be one of those shiny titanium notebooks. The OS is getting so robust that "you can't do that on an Apple" is getting obsolete. Try drilling down into the BSD core, getting fink and compiling open source stuff if you don't believe me. My girlfriend is all jumping around going "I told you so, I told you so" -- but I'm not the one who changed. Apple has been doing it right for several years, in my view - they're just doing it faster now. Kewl!
Time may come that the only reason I still need a non-Mac computer is to play Neverwinter Nights. :-P
A - the P2P sharers are encrypting copyrighted materials.
B - the RIAA's goons are breaking the encryption
why does A + B not equal C - mass, widespread and publicly admitted criminal violation of the DMCA by the RIAA? Of course, under any rational interpretion of the DMCA, one would have to be breaking the encryption for the purpose of violating the copyright in order to be guilty of a crime, but the RIAA itself has argued in court that there is no intent requirement.
Since they have publicly admitted their ongoing intent to violate DMCA in national publications, we should contact our State Attorneys General and inform them that they should bring criminal charges under the DMCA.
I'll be dropping the California Attorney General a little line, myself.
However, don't, don't, don't send me your names if you want to sue SCO, please. The email address I have posted at Slashdot is /dev/null, and I am presently (but hopefully not for too much longer) working for a giant law firm where I can't just decide to take a case if I want to. But if I were not under that limitation, I would be very interested in talking with anyone who became the target of a cease-and-desist letter from SCO. I'm sure there are others with similar interests who are not under the same professional constraints, and I suggest that anyone who gets a SCO Linux nastygram consider contacting www.chillingeffects.org and posting the letter there, whereupon students and professors at various law schools may offer free commentary and legal advice. It's my understanding that some victims of improper copyright abuse have obtained lawyers as a result of posting on chillingeffects (although I don't think the site actually offers representation).
I want to correct (or I guess just put a different gloss on) one statement that has been made in the discussion. The GPL's comments regarding standing to sue are probably the law in most jurisdictions. However, in California where I am licensed, there is a statute known as Section 17200 that gives its citizens broad standing to sue for unfair business practices on behalf of the public interest. Although the remedies would be limited to disgorgement of profits (paying back anyone who paid for a SCO Linux license) and injunctive relief (an order that SCO stop asking people to pay for licenses, claiming they own Linux, distributing binary-only, etc.), the interest of the open source community in continuing its free development and use of Linux seems in my view to be exactly the type of public interest this (oft-misused) statute was designed to protect. Moreover, attorney fees can be awarded under 17200, so I feel certain that if the news is well-disseminated, some lawyer not currently wearing the golden handcuffs (as I am) will take up the banner.
The question is, will the content mafia actually go for it? Many have already pointed out that the available info is suspiciously vague and inconsistent. (e.g., some stories are reporting "unlimited downloads for $10 mo. subscription, plus 99c per song if you want a burnable copy," other stories are just straight 99c per song, etc.) I doubt that in the end, Apple will be able to bring the content mafia around to the key user-friendliness points that are necessary to wean music lovers from P2P - most important among them, the ability to burn CDs.
So I'll add mine to the growing chorus of predictions: Yes, if Apple actually does this, it will be quite popular. But it will never actually happen, because the content mafia will be unable to shake their ingrained stomp-on-the-customer mindset. At the last minute, they'll all gang together and insist on some kind of booby-trapped format that will make the downloaded music useless, and Apple will go back to chanting "rip, mix, burn" to the P2P masses. Summary - this will be yet another "greatest opportunity an obsolete, copyright-abusing, customer-despising industry ever missed."
(and just for context, I own over 2,700 CDs, have owned and sold many more over the years, paid for them all, and at present have ripped about 3,000 high-quality MP3s onto my home server for use through portables and stereo. I don't share those files P2P, and have no inherent inclination to do so. But my new policy is - every time I buy a CD that turns out to be booby-trapped (turns out I have about 5 of them), I'll be cracking the encryption where possible and ripping the whole thing into a P2P share directory, plus 5 other CDs from that same label. When the content mafia started selling booby-trapped CDs that won't work on computers, and lobbying Washington to force more booby-traps into my computer, they made an enemy of one of their best customers. I hope they go down in flames, and artists start selling directly to the public. Maybe Apple can help facilitate that, after it realizes the content mafia is just dangling a fake carrot.)
So let me see, we personally have about 3,000 legally purchased CDs, and about 2,500 songs from those CDs are already on our server for personal use on our home network. Go ahead, RIAA - make my day. The bloody freaking second you slap me with a fee for presuming I do something I don't do, that's the second I start doing it. With a few clicks of a mouse, our entire personal collection could become a massive P2P free shopping center. And just wait until we get our whole collection on the server!
Now keep in mind, I have no pre-existing desire or inclination to do this. But if I get slapped with some kind of RIAA presumed-piracy fee by my ISP, I'm damn sure going to start doing it, because I don't want to get ripped off paying the fee for nothing. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. Good going, RIAA! Another completely counterintuitive and counterproductive knee-jerk greed reaction, which as usual displays total incomprehension of good business sense or respect for your best customers.